Camera PV 2007 » Digital Camera » Film
Film
Question:
> I suppose I’ll play chicken with them: if they decide to hassle me about it > and threaten to make me lose my flight, I’ll have to call their bluff. See > who blinks first. I know better than to hassle a screener, and there are > bullies out there who’d like to cause trouble and provoke people. But > saying I’m a travel writer on assignment seems to be my ace in the hole, > since they don’t want their city disparaged by their egregious behavior by a > journalist.
Thanks for posting this information, as this will be helpful for me as well. Nowadays I use my digital camera for personal use, but sometimes I must take photographs with real film. Just about every time I ask for them to screen it by hand, they tell me "it won’t hurt the film" and tell me it MUST be screened by x-ray. Next time they don’t honor my request, I’ll have a print-out of the regulations available. Then if it is not honored, I’ll write a letter to my congresspeople as well as the TSA, FWIW. If enough people start writing letters, perhaps they’ll start to address the problem. I have had film ruined more than once from standard x-ray machines as a result of multiple screenings. I managed to locate the names, mailing addresses and direct telephone numbers to the TSA managers at a few airports I commonly use and if I ever have a film problem at one of these airports, I will also cc the letter to the TSA manager at that specific station. I would also suggest others do the same if they encounter problems. I’ve found the easiest way to get this information is to call the information desk at the airport you need help with (I was even accidentally given the "confidential" telephone # to the security checkpoint once by Airport Information. One other time I requested a local # for a specific airline baggage office at the airport, and I was given the # to the telephone in the actual jetway for that airline!! Ironically a plane was actually boarding on the jetway when I called that # too!). Too many people don’t speak up these days or complain to their elected officials. Many people use the argument that it won’t do any good, but you just never know until you try. Personally, I’ve found my elected officials to be quite helpful at times when dealing with government agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission. Most elected officials (Senators & Representatives) will also contact government agencies on your behalf if you have a specific complaint and want to get an answer or resolution from the government agency. I know one of my elected representatives has a "complaint form" which they will send you, which you can fill out with information about a problem with a government agency and they will seek resolution for you. It takes time, but I’ve had it work in my favor when I needed the assistance of the FTC. Cheers! Steve
Response:
<snip> > I am avoiding this problem entirely on my next flight (which is > tomorrow) simply by not using any film at all. I intend to shoot digital > images during the two weeks that I will be traveling. Film is just > getting to be way too much hassle, even without the issue of airport > inspections and digital cameras are coming down in price and rapidly > improving in image quality.
I wish I had this option, but the magazines for who I write want only color transparencies. The slicks do use digital pics, but only from staff photographers. I suppose I’ll play chicken with them: if they decide to hassle me about it and threaten to make me lose my flight, I’ll have to call their bluff. See who blinks first. I know better than to hassle a screener, and there are bullies out there who’d like to cause trouble and provoke people. But saying I’m a travel writer on assignment seems to be my ace in the hole, since they don’t want their city disparaged by their egregious behavior by a journalist.
Response:
>And I am not the only one. If you read message boards or magazines by >and for photographers, you find out that many professional >photographers are complaining HARD about this. They too carry printed >copies of the ‘hand inspect’ regulation, and they too have it totally >IGNORED.
For me they claimed that they had to have a special person to do the hand inspection! Then they let you wait and stew until departure comes close. Then you give in and it gets x-rayed. The photo journals indicate that there is some damage from this (from their testing). But, what can you do against the dead hand of bureaucracy? I switched to digital. edwardseco
Response:
You should definitely complain to John McCain (I think he’s one of the people who helped form the law that set up the TSA) and your own elected officials in Washington. Let them know how poor a job the TSA representatives are doing at obeying their own policy. > So, getting back to the film. All recommendations are correct – > undeveloped film should not be checked ever. The high power x-rays > will definitely damage your film. The x-ray machine at the regular > security checkpoint will most likely not damage undeveloped film IF > the film is ISO 1600 or lower (most is ISO 100-400, the most common > consumer speeds), AND the number of times exposed to x-rays should be > 5 or less. The TSA has a web page full of advice about how to put > film through security, this is what they say. They also advise > putting film canisters in clear plastic bags to facilitate hand > inspection (good idea) and discourage the use of ‘lead-lined bags’ to > protect film from x-rays. Of course, they also say that they will > hand-inspect, and they may or may not depending on how they feel at > the time. They are fricking liars.
Yup, and to be clear, even film that has been exposed should never be carried in checked luggage. I am avoiding this problem entirely on my next flight (which is tomorrow) simply by not using any film at all. I intend to shoot digital images during the two weeks that I will be traveling. Film is just getting to be way too much hassle, even without the issue of airport inspections and digital cameras are coming down in price and rapidly improving in image quality.
Response:
>If you read PDN, you’ve probably read some of the letters to the >editor dealing with this problem? So far, it appears that the >industry has not been able to do anything about it – Magnum and a few >others have tried to create an ‘awareness’ program to make sure that >TSA screeners are aware of the FAA regulation, but that’s about as far >as its gone.
I’ve not seen the correspondence to which you refer, but AIUI the TSA is not subject to FAA regulations (14 CFR). I think that section (107 ?) was rescinded anyway. The reg. for hand searching is now 49 CFR 1544.211e(4). I have never been denied this (although I don’t bother to ask much now), but a very polite screener in Montana did point out that yes, she’d be happy to hand examine my stuff but the bag (sans contents) still had to be x-rayed. Try as I may I couldn’t find a flaw in this logic and so help me, it even made sense (sort of). Then again most times when I do put the bag (unemptied) through the machine, they want to look inside it anyway. The film in the separate plastic bag usually gets swabbed too. >I sigh and let them do what they want to do, most of the time. I >resent it when my rights are trampled, but I also have to get on the >dang plane. To quote my NYC-hometown wife, "Whattayagonnado?" I do a >slow burn, and then spew all over r.t.a.
Yep. Accountability and the lack thereof. It’ll get worse before it gets better. Probably not in my lifetime. Brian
Response:
The thing that concerns me is the 5 exposure guideline. My son’s film was exposed twice already. Since UK standards seem unclear I guess I better suggest that he get the film developed before returning. He will need good pictures for Immigration should his girlfriend accept his proposal of marriage. They need dated pictures of both of them together to show that they really did meet and spent time together. — Mike D. Remove .spamnot to respond by email
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Carry on is generally considered to be OK, but the TSA is warning the new > screening procedures makes film in checked bags a bad mix (from their > website > http://www.tsa.dot.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/SpecialNeeds__Film.doc). While > they state you can get a hand inspection, I know that some security check > points won’t hand inspect it, so if he asks they may say no. I don’t think > arguing with them is the right path, and in London they have their own > rules. >snip<
Response:
> Thanks Bill. As I am a professional photographer, this is an issue for me. > I haven’t encountered this problem yet; I have run across grumpy screeners > who wanted to x-ray my film cassettes, but so far polite insistence has > worked. In foreign countries I say I’m a travel writer (true) and can’t > afford to lose film, and this has always worked as well. BTW I’ve been > using the Ziploc idea for a few years now.
If you read PDN, you’ve probably read some of the letters to the editor dealing with this problem? So far, it appears that the industry has not been able to do anything about it – Magnum and a few others have tried to create an ‘awareness’ program to make sure that TSA screeners are aware of the FAA regulation, but that’s about as far as its gone. Anyway, I’ve them respond every possible way – from opening my film canisters and peering inside, to swabbing them all with the magic cloth, to trying to unroll my 120 film (sigh, morons), to just refusing to hand-inspect and forcing me to x-ray the film anyway. And since I fly twice a week, I have had a roll or two ruined by x-rays. I am pretty sure it was a cumulative effect; I had several rolls of Agfa Vista 400 that I took on repeated trips before I finally used it. > But my question is this: how do you handle it when they refuse to comply > with federal law? Quoting them chapter and verse would seem to only make > them angrier. What would you do?
I sigh and let them do what they want to do, most of the time. I resent it when my rights are trampled, but I also have to get on the dang plane. To quote my NYC-hometown wife, "Whattayagonnado?" I do a slow burn, and then spew all over r.t.a. With the cameras and film – I travel with a digital as a general rule, currently an Olympus D-40. No problems now, but when I started this gig with one of the first model Oly sub-megapixels, no one knew what it was and security guards constantly wanted to pry it open to look inside. At least now everybody knows what a digital camera is. However, when I travel with my Zeiss Nettar 6×6 folding camera or my Yashica 635 TLR, they freak. Can’t be a camera – they know what a camera looks like. I have also taken shots from the airplane window with my Olympus RC rangefinder, and been told that ‘all electronics must be turned off.’ It is sometimes difficult to explain that some cameras HAVE NO electronics in them. Like all my watches, most of my cameras are mechanical. Now, since you’re a professional photographer and I’m just a color-blind ’serious amateur’, perhaps you could riddle me this. How come all the US camera magazines suck, and all the UK camera magazines are top-notch? The US magazines just bless everything that comes across their desks, while the Brits seem to actually (gasp) test stuff and say what’s good or bad about it! And for a tiny island, they must surely have a lot of snappers – one of the best amateur photo magazines is put out WEEKLY! What up with that? Wanna see some bad amateur photography? Some of my shots are on www.photosig.com under my name. A fun pastime and I seem to be working towards developing a ’style’. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks
Response:
Thanks Bill. As I am a professional photographer, this is an issue for me. I haven’t encountered this problem yet; I have run across grumpy screeners who wanted to x-ray my film cassettes, but so far polite insistence has worked. In foreign countries I say I’m a travel writer (true) and can’t afford to lose film, and this has always worked as well. BTW I’ve been using the Ziploc idea for a few years now. But my question is this: how do you handle it when they refuse to comply with federal law? Quoting them chapter and verse would seem to only make them angrier. What would you do?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> As I read Rule 107e in the DOT regs, not only may a passenger request hand > inspection of any of his carry on bags, the screener may not refuse this > request. Also, and very few airports are in compliance of this second rule > (and with enforcement funding being cut, it’s doubtful any more will > comply), a sign to that effect must be posted at the security checkpoint. > I’ve seen the sign at a few airports. However, one of my hobbies is > photography. I have requested hand-inspection of film when carrying > high-speed (ISO 1600 or higher) and have been refused. I was carrying > a printed copy of the FAA rule. This was this year, after TSA took > over the security at the airport where it happened. I showed them the > printed copy of the reg – no dice. > And I am not the only one. If you read message boards or magazines by > and for photographers, you find out that many professional > photographers are complaining HARD about this. They too carry printed > copies of the ‘hand inspect’ regulation, and they too have it totally > IGNORED. OK? Understand? The TSA does not give one shit what your > FAA regulation says. I suggest you try it sometime. > Now, I read messages like this from airline apologists from time to > time – and I’m not saying you are one. But understand this – the TSA > does not follow the FAA regulations if they don’t feel like it – and > anyone who says differently is lying or seriously misinformed. > I remember last summer when a couple of women were on the news, > complaining that they were being singled out for ‘pat down’ searches > by men based on their attractiveness. I was watching it on a CNN > cable feed in the airport where I was watching a couple of security > guards patting down two women passengers – talk about irony! I then > watched Norm Minetta being interviewed, and flatly denying that it > EVER happened. And here I was WATCHING it happen in front my eyes at > that very moment! > Try to understand – they are LYING to us. They will NOT obey the > written FAA regulations if they don’t feel like it. They WILL make up > any regulations they feel like, whenever they feel like it. > Hopelessly naive to think otherwise. > So, getting back to the film. All recommendations are correct – > undeveloped film should not be checked ever. The high power x-rays > will definitely damage your film. The x-ray machine at the regular > security checkpoint will most likely not damage undeveloped film IF > the film is ISO 1600 or lower (most is ISO 100-400, the most common > consumer speeds), AND the number of times exposed to x-rays should be > 5 or less. The TSA has a web page full of advice about how to put > film through security, this is what they say. They also advise > putting film canisters in clear plastic bags to facilitate hand > inspection (good idea) and discourage the use of ‘lead-lined bags’ to > protect film from x-rays. Of course, they also say that they will > hand-inspect, and they may or may not depending on how they feel at > the time. They are fricking liars. > Here is their official information – for what it might be worth. > Again, I believe anything TSA says…NOT. > http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=56 > Best Regards, > Bill Mattocks > PS – Sorry to seem so harsh, but I’m getting tired of airline industry > and government apologists trying to make it seem like they’re just > decent people trying to do a decent job under difficult conditions. > Crap, says I. You can quote rules, laws, and regulations designed to > protect the traveler – and I can assure you that they will be > gleefully disregarded anytime it suits them to do so. Some of these I > have observed myself in action, including that crap about > hand-inspecting film. They might – and they might not. But showing > them the FAA regulation won’t change a thing. They just don’t care. > Best Regards, > Bill Mattocks
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I was always of the impression that it is not a good idea to have your film > or videos go through the x-ray machines at the airports. They told my son > that it is all right to send it through the carry-on. He is coming back to > the US from London an was wondering about their equipment and the US > equipment, is it film-safe? > Yawn! This topic comes up frequently here. Speaking as a frequent > traveler for over 30 years, I have never had a problem with passing film > through the carry-on luggage scanners. Unless you need to pass your film > through the scanners five or more times, it will be fine, but film > that’s 1600 speed or faster should be hand-inspected.
TSA advisory warns that ASA/ISO 800 and above should be hand-inspected. http://www.tsa.dot.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/SpecialNeeds__Film.doc Ryan
Response:
> As I read Rule 107e in the DOT regs, not only may a passenger request hand > inspection of any of his carry on bags, the screener may not refuse this > request. Also, and very few airports are in compliance of this second rule > (and with enforcement funding being cut, it’s doubtful any more will > comply), a sign to that effect must be posted at the security checkpoint.
I’ve seen the sign at a few airports. However, one of my hobbies is photography. I have requested hand-inspection of film when carrying high-speed (ISO 1600 or higher) and have been refused. I was carrying a printed copy of the FAA rule. This was this year, after TSA took over the security at the airport where it happened. I showed them the printed copy of the reg – no dice. And I am not the only one. If you read message boards or magazines by and for photographers, you find out that many professional photographers are complaining HARD about this. They too carry printed copies of the ‘hand inspect’ regulation, and they too have it totally IGNORED. OK? Understand? The TSA does not give one shit what your FAA regulation says. I suggest you try it sometime. Now, I read messages like this from airline apologists from time to time – and I’m not saying you are one. But understand this – the TSA does not follow the FAA regulations if they don’t feel like it – and anyone who says differently is lying or seriously misinformed. I remember last summer when a couple of women were on the news, complaining that they were being singled out for ‘pat down’ searches by men based on their attractiveness. I was watching it on a CNN cable feed in the airport where I was watching a couple of security guards patting down two women passengers – talk about irony! I then watched Norm Minetta being interviewed, and flatly denying that it EVER happened. And here I was WATCHING it happen in front my eyes at that very moment! Try to understand – they are LYING to us. They will NOT obey the written FAA regulations if they don’t feel like it. They WILL make up any regulations they feel like, whenever they feel like it. Hopelessly naive to think otherwise. So, getting back to the film. All recommendations are correct – undeveloped film should not be checked ever. The high power x-rays will definitely damage your film. The x-ray machine at the regular security checkpoint will most likely not damage undeveloped film IF the film is ISO 1600 or lower (most is ISO 100-400, the most common consumer speeds), AND the number of times exposed to x-rays should be 5 or less. The TSA has a web page full of advice about how to put film through security, this is what they say. They also advise putting film canisters in clear plastic bags to facilitate hand inspection (good idea) and discourage the use of ‘lead-lined bags’ to protect film from x-rays. Of course, they also say that they will hand-inspect, and they may or may not depending on how they feel at the time. They are fricking liars. Here is their official information – for what it might be worth. Again, I believe anything TSA says…NOT. http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=56 Best Regards, Bill Mattocks PS – Sorry to seem so harsh, but I’m getting tired of airline industry and government apologists trying to make it seem like they’re just decent people trying to do a decent job under difficult conditions. Crap, says I. You can quote rules, laws, and regulations designed to protect the traveler – and I can assure you that they will be gleefully disregarded anytime it suits them to do so. Some of these I have observed myself in action, including that crap about hand-inspecting film. They might – and they might not. But showing them the FAA regulation won’t change a thing. They just don’t care. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks
Response:
> I was always of the impression that it is not a good idea to have your film > or videos go through the x-ray machines at the airports. They told my son > that it is all right to send it through the carry-on. He is coming back to > the US from London an was wondering about their equipment and the US > equipment, is it film-safe?
Yawn! This topic comes up frequently here. Speaking as a frequent traveler for over 30 years, I have never had a problem with passing film through the carry-on luggage scanners. Unless you need to pass your film through the scanners five or more times, it will be fine, but film that’s 1600 speed or faster should be hand-inspected.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The intensity of the x-rays that are used at the passenger screening > stations is lower than that supposedly used to bulk-screen checked > bags in the mysterious depths of the airports. > The intensity is lower because the stuff that’s being screened (carry- > on’s) go through one-by-one, are spaced out, and present hardly any > "bulk" for the x-rays to pass through, so you don’t need high intensity. > Also don’t want hi intensity to protect the people that work around > them all day. I seem to recall a sign or something that said that > 400 (or 800) speed film can pass safely through (but anthing higher > would get "exposed"). Most people use 100 or 200 speed film, and > I wouldn’t be concerned with that. > However, if he’s packing the film in his checked bags, I wouldn’t. No > telling what they could be exposed to. Regardless of the speed of > film. > As I haven’t carried film through a passenger screening station in years, > I have no idea if the security people will hassle you about it, like "please > open this little metal can so I can look inside and ruin your film". > I was always of the impression that it is not a good idea to have your film > or videos go through the x-ray machines at the airports. They told my son > that it is all right to send it through the carry-on. He is coming back to > the US from London an was wondering about their equipment and the US > equipment, is it film-safe? > — > Mike D. > Remove .spamnot to respond by email
New TSA packing advisory warns against having film in your checked luggage that will be subject to CTX screening. They pretty much guarantee the film will be ruined. See Fox News link below. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73467,00.html Ryan
Response:
As I read Rule 107e in the DOT regs, not only may a passenger request hand inspection of any of his carry on bags, the screener may not refuse this request. Also, and very few airports are in compliance of this second rule (and with enforcement funding being cut, it’s doubtful any more will comply), a sign to that effect must be posted at the security checkpoint. Can’t speak for the UK, but that’s the law in the USA.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Carry on is generally considered to be OK, but the TSA is warning the new > screening procedures makes film in checked bags a bad mix (from their > website > http://www.tsa.dot.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/SpecialNeeds__Film.doc). While > they state you can get a hand inspection, I know that some security check > points won’t hand inspect it, so if he asks they may say no. I don’t think > arguing with them is the right path, and in London they have their own > rules. > WARNING: Equipment used for screening checked baggage will damage your > undeveloped film. > You should remove all undeveloped film from your checked baggage and place > it in your carry-on baggage. > At the passenger security checkpoint, you should remove the following types > of film from your carry-on baggage and ask for a hand inspection: >